Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]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. [/QUOTE]

great, but who's going to be the superstar QB to keep 6 or 7 guys deep so portis can run at will? or the best left LG/LT combo in the league for portis to run behind and get 3+ yards a clip at absolute will... brunell is about 20 pegs short of manning and dockery/samuels can't hold the jock strap of what the seahawks have. If you want a killer offense, get us a better QB and better line play.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=skins052bgr8]Portis is not the problem, he is getting his yardage and moving the chains for the style back he is. He is not a bruiser up the middle 3rd and 2 type guy. That falls on Gibbs and the coaching staff.

Let me see

Tampa uses Alstott on short yardage not Cadillac or Pittman
Falcons use Duckett not Dunn
Giants use Short not Tiki

[QUOTE]

YES! YES! YES! Portis is not as good of a runner in short yardage situations, ESPECIALLY when teams are expecting it. We've seen that in every single game since Portis has been here. How many times have we seen 1st and goal on the 3, and we run two plays up the gut w/ Portis for absolutley jack-crap, and be forced to run a bootleg. The guy is just not that good in that type of a situation, so why do we continue to put him in the situation? Thats my problem. Portis, in my opinion, is a freaking awsome running back as a whole, but in that situation, I dont think hes that good. So my question is why is he in there then?

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711][QUOTE=skins052bgr8]Portis is not the problem, he is getting his yardage and moving the chains for the style back he is. He is not a bruiser up the middle 3rd and 2 type guy. That falls on Gibbs and the coaching staff.

Let me see

Tampa uses Alstott on short yardage not Cadillac or Pittman
Falcons use Duckett not Dunn
Giants use Short not Tiki

[QUOTE]

YES! YES! YES! Portis is not as good of a runner in short yardage situations, ESPECIALLY when teams are expecting it. We've seen that in every single game since Portis has been here. How many times have we seen 1st and goal on the 3, and we run two plays up the gut w/ Portis for absolutley jack-crap, and be forced to run a bootleg. The guy is just not that good in that type of a situation, so why do we continue to put him in the situation? Thats my problem. Portis, in my opinion, is a freaking awsome running back as a whole, but in that situation, I dont think hes that good. So my question is why is he in there then?[/QUOTE]

Your absolutely right. Portis is not the complete back to run this offense. Gibbs used to have backs he could use in every situation. Portis is not that back...it's not his fault but he's not. Gibbs made a mistake bringing him here and paying him 50 million to be the every down starter.

I have a hard time imagining the skins winning big in the next few years with Portis as the every down back. They either need to trade him for a better fit which may not be possible due to the cap, or bring in another back who runs the inside runs and short yardage stuff better. But if you go that route you are paying Portis 50 million to be a part time player. It's not a good situation but they need to do something by next season.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711][QUOTE=skins052bgr8]Portis is not the problem, he is getting his yardage and moving the chains for the style back he is. He is not a bruiser up the middle 3rd and 2 type guy. That falls on Gibbs and the coaching staff.

Let me see

Tampa uses Alstott on short yardage not Cadillac or Pittman
Falcons use Duckett not Dunn
Giants use Short not Tiki

[QUOTE]

YES! YES! YES! Portis is not as good of a runner in short yardage situations, ESPECIALLY when teams are expecting it. We've seen that in every single game since Portis has been here. How many times have we seen 1st and goal on the 3, and we run two plays up the gut w/ Portis for absolutley jack-crap, and be forced to run a bootleg. The guy is just not that good in that type of a situation, so why do we continue to put him in the situation? Thats my problem. Portis, in my opinion, is a freaking awsome running back as a whole, but in that situation, I dont think hes that good. So my question is why is he in there then?[/QUOTE]

I agree with your statement in regards to using a bigger, stronger back in those situations. However, where I disagree is that the running style for the teams you mentioned, tampa, falcons, giants, they all have a running attack that suits the back being used. Falcons use more stretch plays that allows Dunn to pick a hole and explode through it. As well as Tampa and the Giants. They put there backs in position that best fits their ability. We on the other hand continue to hand Portis the ball and say run up the gut, run behind Jansen or Samuels. The few plays we use that allows Portis to use his cutback ability or speed are very effective. The fact is we dont have enough of those plays in the book to use. I would like to see more of Nemo in the short yardage situations. we did draft him for that reason, and he has yet to see the field. But that goes with Joes thinking of not playing rookies. And playing Carlos is not his decision. GW makes ALL of the decisions regarding the defense and Joe makes them with regards to the offense.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

As far as I'm concerned, everyone on here who is hating on Clinton Portis knows absolutely nothing about football. Other than LT, I wouldn't want any other back in the league right now. Honestly. Do you think Alexander, James, or any other back in the league would be able to have success in our offense? Our quarterback is MARK BRUNELL! I guarantee you that if Clinton was on the Colts right now, that he would be having a better season than Edge. And if Edge was on our team, he would have a helluva time out-producing Portis at this point. On top of that, look at the Run Defenses we have gone against!!!

In fact, if we would've won 2 or 3 of the past 3 games, there wouldn't be a problem at all. The problem with this team has been COACHING! I love Gibbs, and I think he'll turn it around, but it's the coaching. Against the Raiders, a better pass defense than run defense, we try to pass when up 10 points! Against the Chargers, the NFL's number 1 rushing defense, and weak pass D, we try to run!!! It's not about being conservative or not running the clock, it's about playing to your opponents weaknesses and getting first downs!!!!!!

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=mason4415]As far as I'm concerned, everyone on here who is hating on Clinton Portis knows absolutely nothing about football. Other than LT, I wouldn't want any other back in the league right now. Honestly. Do you think Alexander, James, or any other back in the league would be able to have success in our offense? Our quarterback is MARK BRUNELL! I guarantee you that if Clinton was on the Colts right now, that he would be having a better season than Edge. And if Edge was on our team, he would have a helluva time out-producing Portis at this point. On top of that, look at the Run Defenses we have gone against!!!

In fact, if we would've won 2 or 3 of the past 3 games, there wouldn't be a problem at all. The problem with this team has been COACHING! I love Gibbs, and I think he'll turn it around, but it's the coaching. Against the Raiders, a better pass defense than run defense, we try to pass when up 10 points! Against the Chargers, the NFL's number 1 rushing defense, and weak pass D, we try to run!!! It's not about being conservative or not running the clock, it's about playing to your opponents weaknesses and getting first downs!!!!!![/QUOTE]


WOW, someone calling out everyones knowledge about football, boy thats out of the ordinary isn't it? Nobody is questioning Portis's ability as a running back in the NFL. As he has shown in Denver. What is being questioned is the system he is in, which requires alot of between the tackles and guards running, which is better suited for a bigger, more physical back. No one here is questioning his effort or willingness to absorb punishment. He is doing exactly what is being asked of him. And as a true class act has not spoken up about how he is being used. I like Portis as a player and locker room personality, however alot of us feel he is not suited to be a pounding kind of running back. He is better suited for they type of offense he ran in Denver, zones, cutbacks, stretch plays ect. As we call more of these types of plays Portis will eventually be the homerun hitter we were accustomed to seeing in the Denver days. Until then, he will be a 3 to 4 yard, maybe 5 occasionaly average. Everyone says look at his numbers, 1300 yards in 14 games, yeah but look at the amount of carries, ALOT more than anyother back in 14 games. It will take a toll on him in the long run too. As it did toward the end of last season. I hope Portis turns into our best back ever, but if he is to do that the staff will have to adjust play calling to what better fits Clintons strenghts.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

yup

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=mason4415]As far as I'm concerned, everyone on here who is hating on Clinton Portis knows absolutely nothing about football. Other than LT, I wouldn't want any other back in the league right now. Honestly. Do you think Alexander, James, or any other back in the league would be able to have success in our offense? Our quarterback is MARK BRUNELL! I guarantee you that if Clinton was on the Colts right now, that he would be having a better season than Edge. And if Edge was on our team, he would have a helluva time out-producing Portis at this point. On top of that, look at the Run Defenses we have gone against!!!

In fact, if we would've won 2 or 3 of the past 3 games, there wouldn't be a problem at all. The problem with this team has been COACHING! I love Gibbs, and I think he'll turn it around, but it's the coaching. Against the Raiders, a better pass defense than run defense, we try to pass when up 10 points! Against the Chargers, the NFL's number 1 rushing defense, and weak pass D, we try to run!!! It's not about being conservative or not running the clock, it's about playing to your opponents weaknesses and getting first downs!!!!!![/QUOTE]
This is the 2nd thread you posted this non-sense. Im not re-posting my response.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

I think the tragedy of our running game is not that we're running Portis on less than ideal plays, but that we have yet to develop a short yardage back. I had hoped to see Betts fill that role this season, especially considering that Cartwright is too short to be consistently moving the pile. 1-2 punches work in the NFL, Dunn-Duckett & Cadillac-Alstott are just two examples that jump to mind.

I do think Portis has changed his running style some, instead of trying to make a play he too often covers up the ball with both hands and plows forward. In the Charger game I didn't see him cut back or have any wiggle on his runs, just plow straight ahead and get the yards ahead of him. That's not Portis! I want to see him darting through the hole, shaking the hell out of the safety and off to the races. That's the problem, we traded for Portis and have proceeded to turn that quarter horse into a plow mule. This running game doesn't need a big back to grind out games, just someone to move the chains and Portis was supposed to bring the added dimension of the big play. But where has that been? Maybe our small receiving corps is partially to blame since you need good downfield blocking to break those big runs.

We'll win once we are able to run more than we throw. Our superstar is Portis, and if we're going to run more stretch plays and zone blocking then we have to be committed to it. It's that commitment that makes Denver and Atlanta's run game work. When we try to sprinkle in the stretch plays they stick out like a sore thumb, like when Donnie Edwards called out the stretch and Brunell was forced to audible to a pass. By not committing either way we seem to have lost our identity, I mean who really are the 2005 Redskins? We're not as good defensively as we were last year, and while we are improved from last year offensively we're a long ways from being an offensive juggernaut. We've got to find an identity, and soon, or else we'll be handing Denver a top ten pick.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

rock did have a good short yardage completion rate under spurrier... of course, to spurrier 3rd and 1 was an obvious passing down (as was every other down). Maybe broughton can learn to not fumble and give it a try... or sellers, or how about mccune? he's built and smart enough to run foward into a pile.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

Quick question who was our starting RB before Clinton Portis? Trung Canidate...Now i may be a dumb-ass aussie who lacks the knowledge and intricacies of the game, but i am thinking this is possibly an upgrade of where we were at 2 years ago.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=fevola]Quick question who was our starting RB before Clinton Portis? Trung Canidate...Now i may be a dumb-ass aussie who lacks the knowledge and intricacies of the game, but i am thinking this is possibly an upgrade of where we were at 2 years ago.[/QUOTE]


It really depends on how you look at it, if we traded Bailey for pick's or Shawn Alexander we could very well be better off and have more money to help in other area's, if you are saying it is a choice between the 2 than talent wise no, but you have to take into account what we would have done contrary to the Portis trade.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]With all due respect, no rational person should have expected Portis to turn our offense into the Colts or Seahawks. That is unless you expected Portis to use his magic wand to turn Chris Samuels into Walter Jones, Mark Brunell into Peyton Manning, etc.

Not to sound like a real jerk, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to what guys like Antonio Pierce are saying or where opposing defenses are lining up. Pierce said after the Giants' blowout, "We knew that if we stopped Portis, we would stop their offense. So we did everything to shut him down." Moreover, opposing defenses are stacking the box with more than 7 guys on 90% of downs.[/QUOTE]


My contention for the most part is great lines make decent backs look very good, great backs make decent lines look great, Peyton, and Sanders, are 2 players who did it most of their careers without great lines, when our line becomes good enough for Portis to run like he did in denver, it will be good enough for Betts or others to do the same.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

offiss, my point was that we had no running game whatsoever with Spurrier and a RB was our number 1 priority. The fact that we got a 22 year old who had excelled in his first 2 years was a coup. We were always going to pay a hefty price for this. CB's are dime a dozen and if we had kept Smoot, we would not be complaining.

i guarantee that everyone was over the moon the day CP signed with us. CP is still young and i have no doubt he will be the gun everyone thought he would be. Patience people.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=offiss]My contention for the most part is great lines make decent backs look very good, great backs make decent lines look great, Peyton, and Sanders, are 2 players who did it most of their careers without great lines, when our line becomes good enough for Portis to run like he did in denver, it will be good enough for Betts or others to do the same.[/QUOTE]

Very good point, but I don't expect Portis to be one of the top 5 RBs of all time. I expect him to be one of the top 3 backs in today's league. I think he's come close to meeting my expectations. While he hasn't posted top 3 stats, that he has put up 2,300 yards in less than two seasons behind our offense (not just the line) is pretty spectacular in my opinion.