Is This Guy For Real?
 

ESPN's Len Pasquarelli reports there are whispers emanating from Washington that RB Clinton Portis isn't quite a perfect fit for the HC Joe Gibbs offense, which usually demands a power-type back. But a far bigger concern for the Redskins, who still figure to get about 1,400-1,500 yards from the third-year veteran obtained in the CB Champ Bailey trade, is the No. 2 tailback spot. None of the backups -- RB Ladell Betts, RB Sultan McCullough, RB Chad Morton or FB Rock Cartwright -- have been very impressive. Which explains why personnel chief Vinny Cerrato has been calling around checking on the status of veteran tailbacks who might be released this weekend. The 'Skins snooped around the possible availability of RB Garrison Hearst, with whom Cerrato is familiar from their stint together with the 49ers, but the Denver Broncos aren't likely to cut him now that RB Mike Anderson is sidelined for the season. Washington will take a long look at the waiver wire this weekend to see if there is a tailback better than the group it currently has behind Portis on the depth chart.

:lol:

:laughing- :laughing- :laughing- I really don't think so. Wait, :laughing- no I don't think so.

I don't think it's laughable. Joe prefers big backs (Riggins). None of the backups qualify as big. Why wouldn't Vinny try to get someone that Joe would feel comfortable to back up Portis?

Hearst isn't necessarily the answer because he's only 5'11'' 215 but he's been pretty solid for the last few years. And face it... if Portis gets hurt... with the current backups, the Redskins are out of the playoffs. Hearst is better than any other backup we have,

Rushing
Year Team G GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
2001 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 252 1206 4.8 43 4 7 53
2002 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 215 972 4.5 40 8 6 53
2003 San Francisco 49ers 12 12 178 768 4.3 36 3 3 38

Receiving:
Year Team G GS No Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ 40+ FD
2001 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 41 347 8.5 60 1 2 1 15
2002 San Francisco 49ers 16 16 48 317 6.6 16 1 0 0 14
2003 San Francisco 49ers 12 12 25 211 8.4 26 1 3 0 7

You guys starting to doubt Joe Gibbs?

Heart has two bum knees, and everyone talks about GIbbs wants power backs like riggons, but wernt all his other backs small guys? Portis is a perfect fit for any coach, the guys a stud.

Jamie Morris Is A Good Example. Byner Wasnt All That Big. Kelvin Bryant, Timmy Smith Etc.

Portis Is A Great Rb For The System

Hearst Has A Repaired Bum Ankle His Knees Should Be Fine

Considering Joe intends to run Portis "until his tongue hangs out"... he may break down over the course of the year. I trust Joe as a good judge of talent. Aside from Portis, he doesn't see it on out current roster.

Timmy Smith had one good game. (One amazing game).


[QUOTE=jrocx69]Jamie Morris Is A Good Example. Byner Wasnt All That Big. Kelvin Bryant, Timmy Smith Etc.

Portis Is A Great Rb For The System

Hearst Has A Repaired Bum Ankle His Knees Should Be Fine[/QUOTE]

I think after tonights preseason finale, Betts has proved that he is a worthy number 2. If you look back at at SuperBowl XXII Timmy Smith had a career day and that game changed Gibbs philosophy about power backs compared to speed backs. Before that SuperBowl he primarily relied on power backs Like Riggo but even then he had speed with Joe Washington. After that SuperBowl the skins went through many speed backs none really worth mentioning except Ernest Byner. George Rogers was around and took over for Riggo then came Gerald Riggs but it was never like the days of Riggo because he was a phenomenon for his size and speed. Don't get me wrong though it's nice to have a power full back thats 250Lbs to run it in at goal line situations but in todays football I'd rather have an all around quick back than a power back.

[QUOTE=EEich]I don't think it's laughable. Joe prefers big backs (Riggins). None of the backups qualify as big...You guys starting to doubt Joe Gibbs?[/QUOTE]

Nobody's doubting Joe Gibbs, we're doubting Lenny Pasta!

This is simply one of the biggest misconceptions we keep hearing over and over. Gibbs prefers backs who can get the job done and don't fumble the ball -- regardless of their size.

He has used running backs of all different statures: Byner was an average sized back (about 220), Joe Washington, Timmy Smith (one amazing game or not) and Ricky Ervins were all little guys. Kelvin Bryant was lanky (6'2", 195), while Riggs, Rogers and Riggins were all above 235 -- so clearly, there was no favorite prototypical running back. Gibbs handed the ball to players at that position of practically every physical type.

Must have been a slow news day for Pastabelly.

[QUOTE=EEich]I don't think it's laughable. Joe prefers big backs (Riggins). None of the backups qualify as big. Why wouldn't Vinny try to get someone that Joe would feel comfortable to back up Portis? [/QUOTE]

Was this supposed to be serious or just totally silly?? Just because a coach happens to have one big back for less that half of his very successful years with a team, that is ALL he wants? Gee, I guess he should have looked up Portis' weight on [url]www.nfl.com[/url] before he made the trade. Portis is definitely a "Gibbs" RB. LOL

Len Pastabelly is REALLY desparate to get his name in the news to come up with this ridiculous pile up bull crap. How could anyone on this site buy into it?? Amazing.

Well said Beemnseven! I'm just waiting for someone to write "Whispers are emanating from Washington that Brunell isn't quite the perfect fit for HC Joe Gibbs offense, which has always had a right-handed starting QB"

The man is one of the greatest ever because he can win with anybody!

If Gibbs prefers big backs then why did he go out and trade for Portis??

Makes no sense.

Gibbs has seen how the league has changed over the years. Speed is such an asset in today's game, and for a smaller back Portis does play with surprising power as well.

Listen guys... my comment wasn't that he had to get a big back... or couldn't win without one... just that he preferred them. Did you not understand my point about Hearst not being big, but being a potentially good backup?

Gibbs will win with Portis as long as Portis stays healthy. He's just worried that he won't because of his intention to use him 30+ carries a game. A bigger back might be able to handle that load a little better.

I believe that he is uncomfortable with the backups. We've heard the same thing from other sources. None have shown him the ability to chew up turf and stay healthy.

guys,have you ever heard fatass pastabelly lenny p say 1 good thing about the redskins?i rest my case.he's a sexually frustrated bill parcels/jerry jones/cowbooy fan
with delusions of nfl godhood.

Well I hear what you're saying EEich. My beef with lenny p's comments were primarily that Portis isn't the perfect fit for the Gibbs offense. I don't think Gibbs offense is about who's lining up behind the O-Line, it's the O-Line itself.

Vinny wouldn't be doing his job, or whatever it is he does, if he wasn't looking for ways to improve the team but personally I don't think replacing Betts with an older, slightly smaller Hearst is the answer.

[QUOTE=EEich]Gibbs will win with Portis as long as Portis stays healthy. He's just worried that he won't because of his intention to use him 30+ carries a game. A bigger back might be able to handle that load a little better.

I believe that he is uncomfortable with the backups. We've heard the same thing from other sources. None have shown him the ability to chew up turf and stay healthy.[/QUOTE]

Eeich, I guess your second statement here could possibly be true - but I have not seen anything like that from any reliable source. (LP is DEFINITELY not reliable - he and Prisco generate enough cow dung to fertilize the entire midwest.) But your first statement is another story. What evidence could you possibly have the "He's just worried that he won't..." You are not only putting words in the man's mouth, you are trying to put thoughts in his head. Where are you getting this stuff? Why do you think Gibbs is trembling in his office at the prospect of having Portis carry a heavy workload?

And by the way, this Gibbs history of a heavy workload is a myth. Yes, for one or two seasons, Riggo was getting many, many carries. But for all the rest of his time here, Gibbs was known for successfully splitting the workload among his backs - none were overworked. Look it up. I think he made that "tongue hanging out" comment in jest. We'll see.

Now back to the real world. Betts is the only decent backup they have. I sure hope he can stay healthy!!!!!!

The backup situation is a concern but Gibbs bigest strength is adapting his system to whoever he has. If a standout back comes available then we may pick him up thats what teams do.

I'm putting words into his mouth and you're taking them out of his mouth. Go figure. I'm thinking he's trembling at the idea that he's like Portis to carry a heavy workload without a solid backup. He also said that he plans on keeping three quarterbacks all season, unlike one recent head coach. Joe likes to play it safe.

[QUOTE=Hogskin]I think he made that "tongue hanging out" comment in jest. We'll see.

[/QUOTE]

I do think it's safe to say Gibbs will have his eye on the waiver wire for these final rounds of cuts for any surprises, only because of Bett's history of injuries. But then that means Rock, Simon and McCullough would all be out.

Wow, Lenny sure knows how to stir our pots, doesn't he?

Pasquarelli's assertion that Portis might not be a good fit are waaaaaaayyy off base. He's making this assumption based on misperceptions of Gibbs' past tendencies, as well as underestimating Gibbs' well-documented ability to adapt his system to the athletes he has available. It's impossible to draw any conclusions based on the preseason, because we've hardly seen Portis, and when he has played, it's been in a very scaled-down and basic version of the offense Gibbs will run this season. In fact, I would be inclined to say that most of the plays Gibbs has been running are more reflective of his original playbook, and that when he opens up his regular season package, there will be a pretty heavy infusion of new wrinkles tailored for the strengths of this group of players, in particular the runningbacks and quarterbacks.

Keep in mind, the media has been barred from watching practices since the public portion of training camp closed on August 11th, so any whispers Pasquarelli is hearing could only be referring to Portis' inability to adapt to the way Gibbs lines up his players for stretches-- which is the only portion of practice the media really gets to see, aside from a few special teams drills.

Now as far as the backups go, of course Gibbs and Cerrato will be watching the waiver wire for decent backups-- what good personnel department doesn't do that? There are question marks about the depth chart behind Portis, and Gibbs will certainly want to solidify that area before heading into the regular season. Why? Because Gibbs has consistently made good use of the depth at runningback, spelling the primary runner frequently, while plugging in specialty backs (Mitchell, Bryant, Riggs, etc) based on game situations. If there is a runningback available that offers an improvement in that area, Gibbs will certainly try to get him.

[QUOTE=joecrisp]In fact, I would be inclined to say that most of the plays Gibbs has been running are more reflective of his original playbook, and that when he opens up his regular season package, there will be a pretty heavy infusion of new wrinkles tailored for the strengths of this group of players, in particular the runningbacks and quarterbacks. [/QUOTE]

Very, very good point, Joe. Gibbs, more than anything, has always been a master of innovation and adjustments. He did it from game-to-game any time teams would come up with something to counter his latest offensive innovation, and on a few occassions, he did it even at halftime when neccessary. How is it that these so-called experts have not realized he will CERTAINLY do it after all these years away, and after he spent so much time in the film rooms studying the latest strategies and techniques of the NFL teams. His genius has not suddenly disappeared. Maybe not all of his latest innovations that are yet to be unleashed on his opponents will be successful, but he will keep working until he has plenty that ARE.

I also agree, they will have their eyes open for waiver wire surprises and for an opportunity at a good deal to improve the depth. One thing I have found interesting is that early on, Chad Morton was identified as the guy that would be the 3rd down back, and that recently we have not seen him in that role. Even his personnel decisions are cloaked in secrecy. No one outside the team knows the plan. I love it!!!! I can't wait to see what is unveiled next weekend.

Right on, JoeC. Proving once again you're a better journalist than Pasta-ass will ever be!

Look, I'll be honest, I didn't actually read the article. All I needed to see was Pastabelly's name, and I knew it was some anti-redskins BS designed to create "controversy" so he can have something to justify his worthless existence. Don't even waste your time with it!

It just seems that some writers are especially anxious to be the first to break a story that Gibbs may have made a personnel error, or, are eager to concoct the notion that yet again, Dan Snyder has recklessly gobbled up a flavor of the month over-priced free agent that will put the team in "salary cap hell" for years to come.

Same ol' story. And it's getting really old.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Nobody's doubting Joe Gibbs, we're doubting Lenny Pasta!

This is simply one of the biggest misconceptions we keep hearing over and over. Gibbs prefers backs who can get the job done and don't fumble the ball -- regardless of their size.

He has used running backs of all different statures: Byner was an average sized back (about 220), Joe Washington, Timmy Smith (one amazing game or not) and Ricky Ervins were all little guys. Kelvin Bryant was lanky (6'2", 195), while Riggs, Rogers and Riggins were all above 235 -- so clearly, there was no favorite prototypical running back. Gibbs handed the ball to players at that position of practically every physical type.

Must have been a slow news day for Pastabelly.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, I personally thought at the time of Gibb's first tenure, that he would have been better suited with a fast back, rather than a big back, reason? There is a lot of big holes to run through in this offense, where the big back's would get through the line with little contact, and then carry LB's for 4 or 5 extra yard's, where a speedster could have picked up much more, or have taken it to the house, the big back's rarely did that, bottom line Portis is quicker, and faster, than any back Gibb's has ever had, including Joe Washington, who was more in the mold of Chad Morton, He is on the smallish side in stature, but Portis is put together, he can take quite a bit of punishment, remeber you can't hit what you can't catch, Tony Dorsett was probably a little smaller than Portis and he held up fairly well, I would say.

like i said in the past,lenny pastabelly needs to take a box of exlax so he can clear up his very crowded mind.the only thing he's informative about is where his next meal is coming from.what a stroker.........