Interesting tidbit about our running game

I think these are the two statements that I have the biggest problem with Beems. Portis was supposed to transform our offense into the Colts of Seahawks. Not to be a smart ass (sorry), but Portis can't wave a wand and turn Brunell into Manning or Samuels into Jones etc.

If I implied that Clinton Portis is capable of genetic cloning, or applying a little “hocus-pocus” to give us Walter Jones and Peyton Manning, then I apologize for the confusion. I expected Portis to help lead this offense to levels among the Colts and Seahawks. If I’m guilty of great expectations, so be it. Ask the players if they expect to be the best every week. According to what I’ve read from your posts, you’d be surprised at their own expectations. Yes, I expect our team to be the best, and I want this team to win. I’m a fan! What do you expect of me? To be happy at 6-10 or 5-6? I don’t expect to blow fourth quarter leads for three games in a row with the personnel and the coaching staff this team has acquired. Clinton Portis is a part of this team that for three games in a row has not been able to secure the win when called upon to do it.

You actually believe the Portis-Bailey (2nd pick) deal is going to go down like the Walker-Mitchell trade. I think that's just a little bit of an overstatement and that is precisely the problem that I am having lately. I think people are overreacting to our recent losses (as disastrous as they are) and using hyperbole and exaggeration at every turn.

I’ve been saying that the Skins got a raw deal from the beginning, not just since this slump. Since there aren’t big trades in the NFL anymore, deductive reasoning tells me that this one, as of right now, could stand right with them.

say what you want to about Portis, but the real problem, like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, is the lack of an 2nd WR. Yeah Cooley does well but once Moss is doubled and Cooley is taken away who is our next option?

Remember back when we made the playoffs in '99? We did have 2 downfield threats in Westbrook and Connell. Say what you will about them but they did keep opposing D's honest.

This year all we have for a downfield threat is Moss, take that away and stack the box and we are done.

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/PT-AA854A_rushi_20051125201211.gif

We've played seven of those teams and from that:

Only Julius Jones (93 yards in week one) has run for more than the 87 Portis ran for against San Diego

No one has run for more than the 103 yards Portis ran for against Denver

No one has run for more than the 121 yards Portis ran for against Chicago

No one has run for more than the 144 yards Portis ran for against Tampa

But I guess the problem is when he got those runs.The problem is that we do not turn yards into scores.

No, certainly the offense has improved, at least in the passing aspects. But now, we’re getting back to our 2004 ways. Teams are doubling Santana Moss, and the running game is not picking up the slack. In fact, it hasn’t even accomplished basic tasks that every quality team should expect – running out the clock, getting first downs near the end of the game to protect leads, giving your defense a chance to rest. None of this has happened when we needed it most. I just don’t think it’s too much to ask someone of his notoriety, considering what we parted with to bring him in here to accomplish those objectives. And I think it’s perfectly fair to criticize both he and the offensive line when they fail to do the things that could have prevented this current three-game slide.

No, it’s not all Clinton Portis’ fault. But judging from what I’ve seen so far, I think the trade was a raw deal, I think he was not worth the money, the cap implications, the excitement, and the second round pick to get him. I’m just not impressed.The problem with Portis is not with the trade but what we gave up to complete the deal. The same goes with the Brunell deal. It seems that our front ofice has zero skills in negotiating a deal. Denver wanted Bailey pretty bad and we still gave up some draft picks. Brunell which has done a great job this year was an over paid agging QB. We could have picked up both without giving up so much. Its like they go after players with an attitude of just get them no matter what it cost instead of thinking how can we get this player at the best price. We need a tough lawyer who can work these deals.

Yeah, Portis needs to get into the end zone more. Look at LT to see how much of an impact TDs make.

As i have said from day 1...the Portis trade was a disaster. I don't care about Bailey and i don't even care about the wasted 2nd round pick that we threw in for some reason. What i do care about is that Portis is a BAD FIT for Joe Gibbs offense. Putting a back like Portis in Joe Gibbs offense is like putting a square peg in a round hole...it's not working. If you think it is working then why do we line up in shot gun formation on 3rd and 2 at crucuial points in a game? Gibbs built a hall of fame coaching carreer with a power running game as the basis for everything. Portis is a pretty good player...he is just not the player the redskins needed. I have alwasy felt that the skins made that trade out of convenience...denver had a player who didn't want to be there and we had a player who didn't want to be here so lets get together and trade our headaches. And now the skins have 50 million invested in a running back who can not move the pile and play the smash mouth between the tackles football that Gibbs built his reputation playing. Is Gibbs play calling at the end of a game any different now than it was 15 years ago? The answer is no...15 years ago in the 4th quarter with a lead Gibbs called running plays and ran out the clock becasue he had the personel to get it done. This is not Portis's fault it's the redskins fault for bringing him here.

I would like to know why Portis not really being an ideal fit for Joe Gibbs' offense is Portis's fault. First of all, if he didn't fit, Joe shouldn't have gotten him.

However, as it stands, he's the league's 9th leading rusher and he's averaging 4.2 ypc. That's more than Willis McGahee and Rudi Johnson, numbers 6 and 8 on the list. The problem is the system he's running in. Joe Gibbs' unwillingness to adapt to the strengths of his players is the damn problem.

I'd also like to know why Portis's running is always a problem when we lose games? The only time you all didn't want to bench him after a loss was the game against the Bucs.

Another big problem is what Southpaw mentioned, as it stands we have the #9 back in the league and the #15 quarterback according to yards.

Other good teams:

Seahawks: Alexander #1, Hasselbeck #8
Colts: Edge #3, Peyton #10
Cincy: Johnson #6, Palmer #2
Chargers: LT #5, Brees #7
Giants: Tiki #2, Eli #6

Are you noticing some sort of trend here? Those are all teams who rely on their offense. All of the other good teams rely on D. Since the Skins have shown they really can't rely on defense too much, they need a more balanced attack.

Thanks for that stat. I'm listening to more Clinton bashing on the John Thompson show -- Clinton has supporters on the show, too -- and your comparison helps put things in perspective.

It takes ten other guys to deliver the ball to the back (or receiver) to make a play, and evey one of them has to perform for the play to work. If it isn't working, it doesn't just fall on the ball carrier. Sure, I would like to have Tomlinson or Alexander on the team, but they weren't available. Any thought that the Skins would have landed them is wishful thinking. Any thought that Tomlinson or Alexander would perform here as they do on their current team is Snyderitis. Haven't we had enough of that?

I would like to know why Portis not really being an ideal fit for Joe Gibbs' offense is Portis's fault. First of all, if he didn't fit, Joe shouldn't have gotten him.

However, as it stands, he's the league's 9th leading rusher and he's averaging 4.2 ypc. That's more than Willis McGahee and Rudi Johnson, numbers 6 and 8 on the list. The problem is the system he's running in. Joe Gibbs' unwillingness to adapt to the strengths of his players is the damn problem.

I'd also like to know why Portis's running is always a problem when we lose games? The only time you all didn't want to bench him after a loss was the game against the Bucs.

Another big problem is what Southpaw mentioned, as it stands we have the #9 back in the league and the #15 quarterback according to yards.

Other good teams:

Seahawks: Alexander #1, Hasselbeck #8
Colts: Edge #3, Peyton #10
Cincy: Johnson #6, Palmer #2
Chargers: LT #5, Brees #7
Giants: Tiki #2, Eli #6

Are you noticing some sort of trend here? Those are all teams who rely on their offense. All of the other good teams rely on D. Since the Skins have shown they really can't rely on defense too much, they need a more balanced attack.The defense still only allowed 17 points to a very good offensive team. I would not say the skins cannot rely on our d. The o does have to score some points.

I just meant that the Skins can't just trot out a good defense and try to control the ball all day in the hopes that that will be enough to win the game. The defense hasn't been great at holding the lead especially when we don't control the ball late in games. Denver and Chicago stop the run and run the football. We haven't really shut down a running back in a few weeks. The ones we have stopped, we've let the team throw on us. The defense is too inconsistent right now to just try to rely on that to win games.

We need a balanced offensive attack to go along with a pretty good d in order to win.