Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=dgack;257599]Hey, I'm looking at stats of games played, to refute the notion that Betts has had "one good game". The fact is, he historically runs well when he gets carries comparable with a starting NFL RB. When he gets 5-10 carries in a game, of course he's not going to blow anybody's skirt up.

When he gets opportunities, he has taken advantage of them.[/QUOTE]

I think a big point a lot of people have brought up though is that he hasn't been able to take advantage of opportunities because he's always been hurt.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257574]I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are [B]2-6 [/B]when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?[/quote]

What's our impressive record when Clinton's starting?

18-19.

So I guess we can't win with Clinton Portis, either.

Oh, and BTW, the Chargers have gone 48-44 with the greatest RB of our generation and possibly all-time.

Thank you drive through.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=freddyg12;257608]I did & there were several posts that I wanted to quote, too many actually.
While I echoed the sentiment of others, I also added some commentary that others hadn't - that w/the franchise tag Champ would have no choice in the matter until we negotiate. The Skins don't seem to like the franchise tag, but it has been used recently as a medium to buy time & trade disgruntled players.[/QUOTE]

Okay, it just seemed like you just read the first few pages and replied. I apologize then. However, if a guy doesn't wanna play, he doesn't have to show up. And I thought they did franchise him, but they worked out the trade. Champ could have forced his way out and he pretty much did. IMO, the trade worked out well for both teams.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=dgack;257611]What's our impressive record when Clinton's starting?

18-19.

So I guess we can't win with Clinton Portis, either.

Oh, and BTW, the Charges have gone 48-44 with the greatest RB of our generation and possibly all-time.

Thank you drive through.[/quote]

Uh, so the fact that the Redskins don't have a winning record with Portis makes a remark about the Redskins winning with Betts less ridiculous?

A lot of people around here like to see actual facts behind random off the wall comments, and I have no problem calling someone out when the comments are particularly silly.

If all it takes for a statement to be true is for someone to make the claim, then the Redskins can win with me as the starting strong safety. By your logic, that statement is true because they don't have a winning record with Archuleta at strong safety.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257625]Uh, so the fact that the Redskins don't have a winning record with Portis makes a remark about the Redskins winning with Betts less ridiculous?

A lot of people around here like to see actual facts behind random off the wall comments, and I have no problem calling someone out when the comments are particularly silly.

If all it takes for a statement to be true is for someone to make the claim, then the Redskins can win with me as the starting strong safety. By your logic, that statement is true because they don't have a winning record with Archuleta at strong safety.[/quote]

Look, you're confusing two types of things here. One is people's opinions, which you can agree with or disagree with. The other are facts. You used a FACT (Betts' record as a starter) to refute someone's OPINION that you COULD WIN GAMES with him at RB. That's a totally legit approach. In a way, I'm arguing against both your AND his opinion, though, because I'm showing with FACTS, that neither Portis nor Tomlinson's presence as starters alone can "make teams win".

Note that my argument for Betts' efficacy has always been about how many yards he puts up, not necessarily that we can "win games with him". You can't easily compare "game winning activities" with current statistics, so I prefer to compare using what stats we do have. Admittedly, those can still be used in questionable ways, but they're better than totally subjective comparisons.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

You must also look at the fact that Bett's missed blocking assignments essentially led to two turnovers. Portis is the entire package, bett's brings some good things to the table, which explains why Portis is a probowl player, and bett's is a better than average backup, as of right now....

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=dgack;257636]Note that my argument for Betts' efficacy has always been about how many yards he puts up, not necessarily that we can "win games with him". You can't easily compare "game winning activities" with current statistics, so I prefer to compare using what stats we do have. Admittedly, those can still be used in questionable ways, but they're better than totally subjective comparisons.[/quote]

Using stats to back your argument is fine, and it's actually what I base most of my arguments on also. The problem with using rushing stats for a Betts argument is that he only has a handful of 20+ carry games in his five year career, and everyone knows that statistics are flawed when you have a smaller pool of statistical events to choose from.

While his numbers do look decent based on the 20+ carry games he's had, I think the fact that he's only had a few 20+ carry games in five seasons says volumes more about Betts than the actual numbers in those handful of games.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257643]While his numbers do look decent based on the 20+ carry games he's had, I think the fact that he's only had a few 20+ carry games in five seasons says volumes more about Betts than the actual numbers in those handful of games.[/quote]

I won't argue it says something about the guy's durability, or at least his luck. The reason I point out how few 20+ carry games he's had is to point out that we really don't know how good he could be. His early years were spent on some pretty bad Redskins teams even when he WAS relatively healthy, and he didn't have the confidence of the coaches until now.

I certainly am not trying to make a case for Ladell > CP. Just pointing out that he could be a lot more effective for the Skinss than many of us think / expect.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257601]Because Betts fumbled that game away[/quote]


I'm not going to insult your football intelligence. But your comment makes no sense. One turnover does not win or loose a game. You should know that. What if Brandon Lloyd catches the damn ball that JC put right in his hands on the first play of the game? What if, what if, what if.........

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;257399]This article about Betts really made me wonder:

[URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-bettsbid&prov=ap&type=lgns"]Given chance to shine, Betts ponders staying with Redskins - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/URL]

If Gibbs really knew what he had in Betts when he got here, do you think he would have still made the move for Portis?? He says he doesn't regret making the move and of course Portis is a top flight back in this league, but I wonder how things would have turned out if he thought Betts was a capable starting back. I doubt we would have been able to retain Bailey anyway, he really seemed set on getting out of here.

Just one of those things that makes you wonder.[/QUOTE]

Matty, I think you are the only person on this board who can bring this topic up without getting flamed.

I love Portis, but I have wondered about that recently. Even if we couldn't have kept Bailey (and I disagree that we couldn't, it seems that was always more of a money issue) we could have gotten two first round picks for him plus kept that second round pick. Who knows how that would have worked out. However, I'm still glad to have Portis.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;257548]There were a lot of more personal issues behind Champ's leaving that had little, if nothing, to do with how the organization was run. I know because I was dealing with the Redskins on a near daily basis back in those days.[/QUOTE]

like what? tell me tell me tell me.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Watch the Redskins with Clinton Portis on the feild....watch the Redskins without Clinton Portis....they are two completley different teams, period.

The sad part is, this argument really should have nothing to do with Ladell Betts, because it dosent. Ladell Betts is a very nice running back.

However, Clinton Portis is a game changing, franchise changing running back. Since he's been here, here are my list of games we would have not won if we didnt have Clinton Portis in our backfeild....

2004....(6-10)
We dont win...vs Tampa Bay 148 yds TD, @ Chicago 176 yards, @ Detroit 147 yds, TD Pass. without Portis.

In 2005 (10-6)
We were a much better team overall, but
H vs Chicago 141 yds (That 41 blast from our own 4 basically won the game).
What should have been @ Tampa Bay but we lost that one, @ Arizona, vs NYG, @ Philadlephia

This year, I dont think we win the Jaguars, or Dallas II this year without Portis.

He's just a differnet type of back. Ladell Betts is not as good as Clinton Portis, there is no other way to explain it.

I hate that everytime Betts has a good game, we want to trade Clinton Porits. Its freaking ludacris. I have news for everyone....I could have ran through those holes last week in Atlanta...in fact, I almost question Betts on a couple of those runs for NOT gaining more yards.

Heres the other big thing....has anyone seen Betts block? Watch him and watch Portis...its night and day. Clinton Portis is a complete package.

Again, I hate that I have to "Blast" Betts so to speak for this, because I absolutley love Ladell Betts and I couldnt be more excited that he is coming back to Washington. But this get rid of Portis, should we have gotten Portis stuff is just crazy to me. Even if we didnt get Portis in 04' we would have gotten someone else, or would still be looking for someone else.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;257532]Denver is desparate for a quaility back right now like portis. If they had portis I think they would have at least 1 or 2 more wins. I really would like to hold on to both portis and betts considering how much of a "running team" the redskins are supposed to be. Running the ball 30+ times a game is gonna require more than one QUALITY back.[/quote]I think you've hit on something really big here. The "success" of the Denver running scheme may be the biggest crock in professional sports. Basically, the theroy is that you can put anyone in there and get production from him.

But how is this production being measured? If the metric is 1000 yard seasons, that's 62.5 yards per game, not anything special. Originally, the system started getting recognition when Terrell Davis, Olandis Gary, and Mike Anderson posted 1000 yard seasons in 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively. Then in 2001, they didn't even get a 1000 yard back. Terrell Davis is a HOF talent, Olandis Gary was never ever good (including his 1999 season--Denver went from the league's top rushing attack in 98 to below average YPC in 99), and Mike Anderson was and is a good player.

The talk of the almighty system died down after that 2001 flop, only to reemerge when Clinton Portis went for 1500+ in two consecutive seasons. Since the Portis trade, the Denver rushing attack has been rather mediocre, exception to last year when Mike Anderson was back at tailback, and all of a sudden, it was really good again.

Olandis Gary, Reuben Droughns, Tatum Bell, Ron Dayne, Mike Bell. If anyone tries to tell you that the Denver running scheme is great because it made players out of these guys, turn around and punch them in the nose. Denver found sucess with good players like Terrell Davis, Mike Anderson, and Clinton Portis, and the numbers show a significant drop in production in the last 10 years when one of these guys isn't running the football.

Is Shanahan a good talent evalutator of RBs? Yeah, I'd say he's done a great job at finding guys who can play. But this great "running scheme" was and is nothing more than an above average offensive line who has been together for years playing with very good running backs. Now as the line starts to age and they start to replace their players on it, it's going to become increasingly obvious that neither Bell is any Clinton Portis.

In the near future, Portis and Betts will be churning out yards for us, and the Broncos running game will be getting stuffed by the defenses that they play 2 times a year in the AFC West, Oakland, KC, and San Diego.

Then it will be obvious that the loss of Portis hurt the Broncos.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Did The Ego really start this thread???? Well since it's out there...

I have no problem with the Bailey-Portis trade. We got a great RB and team leader. Did we need to throw in the 2nd rounder? That's a fair debate.

But I disagree with the "2 starters for 1" logic. Bailey wanted a lot of money and he got it in Denver. Bailey makes more than Portis plus they have to pay that 2nd rounder. So they got 2 starters, but we got 1 starter and cap space. And that cap space enabled us to get another starter.

And I don't think we'd do anything differently today. I think we need both these guys. Signing Betts will give us depth and take some of the load off Portis. We're no good with Portis out with injury every 2nd game. This should help.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Gmanc711;257706]I hate that everytime Betts has a good game, we want to trade Clinton Porits. Its freaking ludacris. I have news for everyone....I could have ran through those holes last week in Atlanta...in fact, I almost question Betts on a couple of those runs for NOT gaining more yards.
[/quote]

I don't know who specifically this was aimed at, but let me say for the 9th time that I'm a huge CP fan, in no way think that Betts is a better back than CP, or that we'd be better off with Betts than CP. There's no doubt Clinton's presence makes a huge difference -- some in measurable ways, others intangible.

I don't, however, think that this team is doomed without CP, and there's a difference. Betts is better than "just average", I think, but he's never been healthy and the undisputed starter on a decent enough Redskins squad to show it.

We should be thrilled to have a guy like Ladell as a #2 -- much like when the Ravens had Chester Taylor to back up Jamal. What's wrong with that?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=dgack;257714]I don't know who specifically this was aimed at, but let me say for the 9th time that I'm a huge CP fan, in no way think that Betts is a better back than CP, or that we'd be better off with Betts than CP. There's no doubt Clinton's presence makes a huge difference -- some in measurable ways, others intangible.

I don't, however, think that this team is doomed without CP, and there's a difference. Betts is better than "just average", I think, but he's never been healthy and the undisputed starter on a decent enough Redskins squad to show it.

We should be thrilled to have a guy like Ladell as a #2 -- much like when the Ravens had Chester Taylor to back up Jamal. What's wrong with that?[/QUOTE]


Its not aimed at anyone in-perticular. It just seems to happen alot, on a lot of skins' forums. I remember after Betts had a big day against the Vikings in 2004, there was alot of "Trade Portis" type threads. It isnt aimed towards anyone....except maybe Matty, and thats just because ;)

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;257418]The fact that he's open to staying and negotiations have already started are good signs.[/QUOTE]

That happened with Ryan Clark last year as well.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

The reason Bailey didnt want to be a redskins was because the skins never ever pay their own players. (BETTS) about time. Should have kept Bailey and our second rounder to boot. We could have drafted Portis the same year we picked Betts but pased him over. So to make up for it we give up the best CB and a second rounder great move as usual. Throwing away picks like they dont matter.That why we stink now.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Just to be clear I'm not trying to suggest I think we would be better off without Portis, that wasn't my point of this thread at all, though it seems to have gone that route.

I was simply wondering what Gibbs would have done if he had known what he had in Betts prior to making the move. Would he had still made the move?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=CrazyCanuck;257712]Did The Ego really start this thread???? Well since it's out there...

I have no problem with the Bailey-Portis trade. We got a great RB and team leader. Did we need to throw in the 2nd rounder? That's a fair debate.

But I disagree with the "2 starters for 1" logic. Bailey wanted a lot of money and he got it in Denver. Bailey makes more than Portis plus they have to pay that 2nd rounder. So they got 2 starters, but we got 1 starter and cap space. And that cap space enabled us to get another starter.

And I don't think we'd do anything differently today. I think we need both these guys. Signing Betts will give us depth and take some of the load off Portis. We're no good with Portis out with injury every 2nd game. This should help.[/quote]


Not to blow smoke up your ass, but I'v never heard the Portis v. Bailey deal put quite this way. Most people tend to focus on the two players for one part of it...but you really put the cost on Denver's end into perspective. Very good post, man.

Thanks.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257655]I'm not going to insult your football intelligence. But your comment makes no sense. One turnover does not win or loose a game. You should know that. What if Brandon Lloyd catches the damn ball that JC put right in his hands on the first play of the game? What if, what if, what if.........[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that play alone cost them the football game. However, in fumbling, he effectively ended the Skins chances of coming back. The D could've stepped up and made the stop, but they didn't, partly because the Bucs took over at like the 50. That fumble was huge and pretty much put it away for the Bucs. It's a situation where the D should've played better, yes. However, that fumble made a huge difference in the football game. That's a fumble that I've seen Clinton replicate once...a Giants game 2 years ago where he played poorly. That's the only time I can say that a Clinton fumble helped cost the Skins game. Now, as we've stated ad nauseum, Betts doesn't get many chances, but he did then and he lost the fumble. That's kind of a big deal to me.

That doesn't make him a bad back. It doesn't even mean he's not starting caliber. It was a big fumble, though. It did hurt their chances of winning the football game, that's what I'm saying. It was a huge deal and without it they might have won. Like I said, the D was suspect and should've held up, but they hadn't all year to that point. They did what I basically expected. Folded. I didn't expect it from Ladell.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck;257712]But I disagree with the "2 starters for 1" logic. Bailey wanted a lot of money and he got it in Denver. Bailey makes more than Portis plus they have to pay that 2nd rounder. So they got 2 starters, but we got 1 starter and cap space. And that cap space enabled us to get another starter.[/QUOTE]

That's a really good point. That's cap space that was used to bring in Springs.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Bottom line is I hope CP comes back healthy and plays his ass off like he always does. We are going to need him (along w/ Betts) next year with a young QB. Plus he is one of the team leaders. My only point was there was no need to throw in the 2nd rounder. Bailey for Portis straight up ( or a later round draft pick) would have probably gotten the deal done. But I'm glad he's a Redskin. I love the way he pass protects and blocks down field. You simply can't replace that. We need more CP's on this team if you ask me.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Betts has not even played 1 complete season as a starter and to judge him as compared to Portis is crazy. Portis is a bonafide starter in the NFL and Betts is a back-up filling in for the injured starter. Betts may become a starter and good back in the league but I'd like to see him play a little more than a partial season before I start comparing him to a real starter.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;257766]Not to blow smoke up your ass, but I'v never heard the Portis v. Bailey deal put quite this way. Most people tend to focus on the two players for one part of it...but you really put the cost on Denver's end into perspective. Very good post, man.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Is blowing smoke up my ass a good thing? At first I thought you were gonna curse me out. :)

Thanks.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257502]They would have needed Bell because Betts isn't an every down back. He's not a guy who can stay healthy for 16 weeks while carrying the load. Until this year, he hasn't stayed healthy for a whole season yet. And there're still 4 games left. Also, he was out early in the preseason, if memory serves me correctly. Anyway, they would have needed another back because Betts isn't a real #1 and he's not reliable.

Beyond that, [B]Bailey wasn't coming back.[/B] Period. He didn't want to be a Redskin. He wasn't going to resign. He didn't like it in Washington and wasn't going to resign. What could the Skins have done? Denver could've just signed him or the Skins could have kept a malcontent as a franchise player. They had to give up the 2 or they wouldn't have gotten the deal done. Champ should basically be taken out of the consideration of the trade because he wasn't going to be a Skin, one way or another. Who cares about the 2, anyway? What's the last starter the Skins got from the second round? Smoot? Cause Rocky hasn't seen the field yet. C'mon, the 2's not that big of a deal. And besides, they gave up a 3 for Duckett and he never sees the field...[/quote] Yeah , NOBODY ever finds good talent after rd 1 ! Give most teams a 3rd and two 4th round picks and they will find starters , Patriots , Steelers , Colts , Bengals ,Ravens ect . We could have easily built a top 5 - 10 defence with the 2nd - 4th rd picks we let go the last few years . Cb Marshall 2nd T Trueblood 2nd , De's Canty< UVA > 4th rd , Dummerville ,4th , Anderson 4th , Adeyandji 4thDt cofield 4th.too many lost opprotunities to list Couldn't we have traded Bailey for a 1st and a 3rd rd pick , after all we gave up two 2nd rd picks for Rocky , and two picks for Loyd and Bailey is much better than both of them combined .

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Mattyk72;257758]Just to be clear I'm not trying to suggest I think we would be better off without Portis, that wasn't my point of this thread at all, though it seems to have gone that route.

I was simply wondering what Gibbs would have done if he had known what he had in Betts prior to making the move. Would he had still made the move?[/quote] Good point , too bad you have to explain it again . We could have traded bailey < if he wanted out > for multiple draft picks and drafted another back , an O lineman and used our 2nd on the DL .The Texans traded two 2nd rd picks for CB Buchanan<who sucks > we couldn't have got more for Bailey ? We could have signed a rb if F/a and saved that pick . I also like CP , but he has not been a dominant back in Washington . How many times has he run for over 140 yds in a game ? How many times has he failed on short yardage ? I think he is a heck of a back , maybe a better passing game would give him more big runs , but as of now ,,, he aint no LT or LJ or S. Alexander . As far as Denver , they have had 3 RB's over 1,500 yds , and T. Bell was on pace for 1,600 yds last yr before he got hurt. Not saying Portis is not a great back ,but we could have made a better deal .

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=budw38;257913]Yeah , NOBODY ever finds good talent after rd 1 ! Give most teams a 3rd and two 4th round picks and they will find starters , Patriots , Steelers , Colts , Bengals ,Ravens ect . We could have easily built a top 5 - 10 defence with the 2nd - 4th rd picks we let go the last few years . Cb Marshall 2nd T Trueblood 2nd , De's Canty< UVA > 4th rd , Dummerville ,4th , Anderson 4th , Adeyandji 4thDt cofield 4th.too many lost opprotunities to list Couldn't we have traded Bailey for a 1st and a 3rd rd pick , after all we gave up two 2nd rd picks for Rocky , and two picks for Loyd and Bailey is much better than both of them combined .[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's what I said...what I said was the Skins don't find a whole lotta starters out of later picks. I actually supported with facts about the Redskins, not the rest of the league. I don't think giving away draft picks is a good idea. What I said was that the Skins gave away the 2 because they weren't gonna get Champ back. Oh and btw, they built a top 5-10 defense without the damn picks! Until this season at least. I love how now all of a sudden they should have used those picks on the defensive side of the ball. Anyone know what was wrong with the team when Champ left? Pretty much everything. Somehow, I doubt that they would have drafted all defenders with those picks. Also, I see that you didn't name 1 starter the Skins have found in a round after 1 in that post...Why? They apparently don't scout well, or don't even try.