|
|
SmootSmack 11-27-2005, 11:16 PM 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.
Beemnseven 11-27-2005, 11:32 PM 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.
Portis' 87 yards against San Diego = LOSS
Portis' 103 yards against Denver = LOSS
Portis' 121 yards against Chicago = WIN (just barely a win, and look at the respective teams now)
Portis' 144 yards against Tampa Bay = LOSS
Ask yourself this: Knowing what you know now, would you have continued with the trade for Clinton Portis?
SkinsLove24/7 11-27-2005, 11:54 PM very interesting stat...it shows there are parts of this team that are solid even if the games are losses.
SmootSmack 11-28-2005, 12:05 AM Portis' 87 yards against San Diego = LOSS
Portis' 103 yards against Denver = LOSS
Portis' 121 yards against Chicago = WIN (just barely a win, and look at the respective teams now)
Portis' 144 yards against Tampa Bay = LOSS
Ask yourself this: Knowing what you know now, would you have continued with the trade for Clinton Portis?
Well like I said, the problem seems to be that we're not getting the runs at the right time. Yeah I would have continued with it. I don't know what other options we had really. I know that Shaun Alexander had been mentioned at the time, but I think that would have meant giving up a first.
skinsguy 11-28-2005, 12:29 AM Personally, I would have never given up Stephen Davis. I know alot of guys here don't like him now, but I had always said that Stephen Davis would have fit into Gibbs' offense perfectly. Which, of course, means that we would have needed Gibbs back at the helm earlier than last year, but in doing so, we probably would have kept Bailey and maybe even Smoot.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 11-28-2005, 12:35 AM Personally, I would have never given up Stephen Davis. I know alot of guys here don't like him now, but I had always said that Stephen Davis would have fit into Gibbs' offense perfectly. Which, of course, means that we would have needed Gibbs back at the helm earlier than last year, but in doing so, we probably would have kept Bailey and maybe even Smoot.
Had Gibbs comes back 5 years ago, Davis would have been perfect. Now, he's too old and injured way too often.
Southpaw 11-28-2005, 02:04 AM Ask yourself this: Knowing what you know now, would you have continued with the trade for Clinton Portis?
If the other option is Ladell Betts as the starting tailback, I'd do that trade 100 out of 100 times.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 11-28-2005, 02:19 AM I posted this in another thread with regard to Portis:
Portis will likely have 2,600 to 2,700 yards in his first two years as a Redskin. That is pretty damn impressive; regardless of what he racked up in Denver. While he's not the 2nd best running back in the league, he's probably the 2nd back I'd take in the league (Tomlinson being the 1st). People think of his contract in today's NFL dollars. That's the wrong approach.
First, Portis, unlike James or other great backs in the NFL today, is 24. 24 years old is damn young, in fact there are a lot of rookie running backs who are 24.
Second, there are a lot of great backs in the NFL who aren't as versatile as Portis. I bet you will be very hard pressed to find a running back that can pick up blocks, catch passes out of the backfield or from the line, or make plays like Portis can. Either they are great runners (i.e. Larry Johnson) or they are great receivers (i.e. Westbrook) or they are great blockers, but rarely do you find a back that can do all of the above.
Third, if you look at guys like Alexander, Johnson, or James, Portis isn't running behind the kind of offensive lines or offenses that they are. You'll be hard pressed to find a back that is posting the kind of numbers that Portis is in an offense that is as inconsistent as ours. The only ones who comes close are Willis McGahee and Reuben Droughns and I'd take Portis over either of those two in a heartbeat.
Fourth, Portis has a great attitude; he's a "team" guy despite his antics. Shaun Alexander threw a hissy fit because he was one yard behind Curtis Martin for the rushing title last year.
You find me a 24 year old back, who can catch, run, block, and even pass who can run behind a mediocre offense without griping and then I'll consider the trade to be a bad one. Until then, Portis is a stud in my book.
offiss 11-28-2005, 02:41 AM Well like I said, the problem seems to be that we're not getting the runs at the right time. Yeah I would have continued with it. I don't know what other options we had really. I know that Shaun Alexander had been mentioned at the time, but I think that would have meant giving up a first.
Really? You mean like late in the game when a defense knows we are running the ball? Kind of like the Tampa, and Oakland games, where a simple first down will due. You know running the ball when it counts? From what Iv'e heard Portis is amoung the best in that department, so that can't be the problem.
:insane:
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 11-28-2005, 03:40 AM Really? You mean like late in the game when a defense knows we are running the ball? Kind of like the Tampa, and Oakland games, where a simple first down will due. You know running the ball when it counts? From what Iv'e heard Portis is amoung the best in that department, so that can't be the problem.
:insane:
Do you see Portis fighting for extra yardage? I do. Do you see gaping holes for him? I haven't in a while. If you think Portis isn't a good back, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|