Can Clinton Carry the Load?

Certainly we need CP to produce if we are going anywhere. And, yes, I think he can carry the load, both physically and emotionally. Betts was very good in a backup role yesterday, and I think that's the best role right now--getting CP in a rhythm is important.

But we are not going to face any D as bad against the run as the Jets, so we can't become one-dimensional in that direction either. And we still don't have the force on the right side to really work a consistent heavy run thing--teams will begin to stack the left side.

We need to get teams keying on the run to open up the passing game, and CP is absolutely crucial for that. We want teams to come in thinking "we must stop CP" and then hit them with the passing attack. And then run it late to ice the game (with a back-breaking long bomb COMPLETED for good measure). That's the formula, as I see it.

I think a few years ago CP could handle the load, today I'm not so sure. I just dont think he's enough of a horse anymore. He has a lot of mileage on him and he has been dinged (which I think still bothers him). Running that way and that often against the terrible Jets is one thing, we will see if he a big enough horse to do it against Dal, Phil & NYG.

i say lets saddle him up, and ride all the way into the playoffs. lets get coach Saunders on the same page. and not try to get to cute

For the offense to be successful, Portis needs to get the ball 25+ times, and Campbell needs to be around 60% on pass completion. Betts needs to be a 1-2 play breather, and 4th quarter mop up duty from here on out.

I gotta weigh in on this kind of analysis. Not to pick on you, BD, because I see it all the time all over the papers and all over the TV, and something just has to be said.

Saying that "in order to be successful, Portis needs the ball 25+ times a game" is exactly backwards. The proper way to say it is that in order to give Portis the ball 25+ yards per game, he needs to be successful.

It's no secret that our coaches want to run the ball a buttload. But in games when we haven't run much, it's not because the coaches weren't trying. It's because they handed the ball off, the runs got stopped, and we had to punt.

When a RB is ripping off 6 yards on most carries, and sustaining drives, then certainly the RB's carries will get up nice and high, because the team keeps making first downs, and the coach will keep feeding him the ball. But if the run is getting stopped, then we get into passing situations on 3rd down, and the other team gets the ball.

In other words, you can't just say "hand the ball off 30-35 times a game" and we'll be successful. If the run game is going nowhere, you have to try something else.

This is to say that coaching philosophy or playcalling has never been a problem. Execution has been the problem. If the line opens the holes, then feeding Portis 25 carries looks like a genius move. If the line gets stonewalled, then feeding it to him 25 times looks idiotic. Whether it's injuries or whatever, it's on the offensive line. If we want to win, we need them to smash face.

25+ carries are the cart. Don't put them before the hogs.

I gotta weigh in on this kind of analysis. Not to pick on you, BD, because I see it all the time all over the papers and all over the TV, and something just has to be said.

Saying that "in order to be successful, Portis needs the ball 25+ times a game" is exactly backwards. The proper way to say it is that in order to give Portis the ball 25+ yards per game, he needs to be successful.

It's no secret that our coaches want to run the ball a buttload. But in games when we haven't run much, it's not because the coaches weren't trying. It's because they handed the ball off, the runs got stopped, and we had to punt.

When a RB is ripping off 6 yards on most carries, and sustaining drives, then certainly the RB's carries will get up nice and high, because the team keeps making first downs, and the coach will keep feeding him the ball. But if the run is getting stopped, then we get into passing situations on 3rd down, and the other team gets the ball.

In other words, you can't just say "hand the ball off 30-35 times a game" and we'll be successful. If the run game is going nowhere, you have to try something else.

This is to say that coaching philosophy or playcalling has never been a problem. Execution has been the problem. If the line opens the holes, then feeding Portis 25 carries looks like a genius move. If the line gets stonewalled, then feeding it to him 25 times looks idiotic. Whether it's injuries or whatever, it's on the offensive line. If we want to win, we need them to smash face.

25+ carries are the cart. Don't put them before the hogs.

Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.

Let me say this while it's on my mind: We need to adopt a no matter what mentality. No matter what, we're running the damn ball. Again, the caveat being, if we fall behind early we have to adjust and tweak the gameplan.

Too often it seems, we have a reactionary game plan. If we're up, we slow down. If we're behind, we try to speed up. I'd like to see us impose our will on a team from start to finish. That's why I have no problem with New England "running up" the score. They have a style and a mindset they play with and they're not apologizing for it.

I think we were close to seeing that yesterday. People look at the final score, and say wait the Skins barely beat the Jets. You take away that kickoff and an untimely penalty and you have a different outcome. Same thing with the Cards game a couple weeks back.

Gidde up! Bout time we got some production outta the run game. Ride that horse!

Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't think it's obvious in the least - I mean ESPN's talking heads say stuff like this all the time.

Committing to the running game doesn't mean it's going to perform well. Execution and the decision to try to execute, are two entirely different things.

You can come up with all the philosophy you want, but in the end, your philosophy needs to be dictated by what your players are capable of doing.

I agree that we need to be running the ball, because it gives us our best chance to win. But I don't agree with blindly handing the ball off without any regard to the success the run game is having - that's how you turn into a predictable offense. The team needs to be capable of both running and throwing the ball. All teams need a plan B, otherwise there's not a lot of adjusting you can do come halftime when you're down by 10 and need to score points.

I have been very critical of Portis as of late. He doesn't seem as fast or as explosive. He seems pretty gingerly and it doesn't look like he can make cuts or push off on those knees.

Still, I'm all for running it all day long.

Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.You see, the probability is unaffected by the number of carries.

There's really no specific evidence to confirm (or deny) your theory of Portis' increased effectiveness with increased carries. I can say this: studies have been done on consecutive carries, and have found that in almost all situations, giving consecutive carries to the same back will decrease effectiveness on the second carry.

So I can't really understand what is making you say that running Portis until his legs fall off is our best course of action. That REALLY seems like (but has not yet proven to be) backwards logic. He ran very well this week against a bad defense who did not use their safeties at all around the line until the overtime period. We pushed their nickel defense around all day, and Portis made a bunch of nice plays. The best way to attack the Jets was to keep running him.

Please don't cite this one game example as absolute validation of your theory. Most teams won't be so slow as to make adjustments to the run as the Jets were.