Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal:

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

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.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Saw this in the Wall Street Journal:

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

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.[/QUOTE]

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?

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

very interesting stat...it shows there are parts of this team that are solid even if the games are losses.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

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.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]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.[/QUOTE]

Had Gibbs comes back 5 years ago, Davis would have been perfect. Now, he's too old and injured way too often.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Ask yourself this: Knowing what you know now, would you have continued with the trade for Clinton Portis?[/QUOTE]

If the other option is Ladell Betts as the starting tailback, I'd do that trade 100 out of 100 times.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

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.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]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.[/QUOTE]





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:

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=offiss]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:[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]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.[/QUOTE]

The problem with Stephen Davis is and has always been his tendency for fumbling. Gibbs would never put up with that.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]If the other option is Ladell Betts as the starting tailback, I'd do that trade 100 out of 100 times.[/QUOTE]

If the only alternative is Ladell Betts, then I might agree. That said, I still believe we've gotten about as much production out of Portis as we would from just about any other running back, without the stupendous price tag.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]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.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, but what's his average getting those 2600 to 2700 yards? More importantly, what's his average against NFC East opponents, in the games that matter most? Right now, it's not even 4 yards a carry.

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]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.[/QUOTE]


For running backs, the life-span in the NFL can be shorter than you think. Sure, he could be in prime condition for another five years, but I doubt it.

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]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.[/QUOTE]



Versatility is great, as long as you do the things you were brought in to do first. Right now, even with an improved offensive line, Portis has yet to be a game-changer, he has yet to be the threat to totally take over the game like he was in Denver. I don't think any rational person will try to argue that we are seeing everything we hoped for from Clinton Portis.


[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]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.[/QUOTE]


My argument to this is that Portis was supposed to be the running back that transformed our offense into levels like those of the Colts or Seahawks. He was supposed to get past 7 and 8 man fronts, and make defenses pay by opening up the passing game. Right now, our opponents have no reason to respect the threat Portis poses.


[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]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.[/QUOTE]


Hmmm, Clinton Portis with the transgender dress-ups on Thursdays versus Shaun Alexander's hissy fits? With 1339 yards and 20 touchdowns so far, I'll take Mr. Hissy Fit, thank you very much.

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]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.[/QUOTE]

I firmly believe that when the history books are written, the Portis trade will rank just below the Herschel Walker and Scott Mitchell moves in terms of one team getting a raw deal.

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

I remember I said on this board that Julius Jones was better than Portis. I was wrong. I think it's sad that you are giving up on this guy.

Portis is a complete back, AND he plays with intensity AND he is a great team guy AND he is 24!! Whenever you guys want so get rid of him, PLEASE CALL RICHARD BURTON I mean CALL JERRY JONES!!!

There isn't a Running Back that ever existed who can create his own holes. I haven't seen gaping holes for Portis to scat through. I haven't seen sealed off corners for him to turn. When the DLine is in the backfield all day, and run blitzes are pretty much guarenteed, there isn't a back in existance who will thrive in the NFL. The yards he is getting are all hard won.

Alexander has some big holes to run through. And he has a Top tier Fullback. LTomlinson has a great line and the other great blocking fullback in the league. What does Portis have??

Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game
 

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

The list goes on, where teams use a big back for short yardage. Give me a break everyone said it themselves. Portis is a big play back not one who is going to turn the oh great 50 Gut into 60 yard TD's every game. That is Gibbs style offense adjust to Portis strengths. Example the Tampa game the most I seen stretch plays and outside off tackle stuff all year example Portis big game. I see Broughton on Special Teams, put him in on short yardage to move the pile where Portis is largely outweighed verse 300 pound lineman. Just does not make since. The problem may not be the playcalling, but the personnel the coaches choose to use in those situations. Don't give me he fumbled in Pre-Season. Many of our players are fumbling bumbling fools in some games.
I have not seen Portis get many opportunities where he is left one on one in open field, I have seen him lately bouncing off keeping his feet better and getting extra yardage when he is swarmed by two, three and four people. He is following his blocks better as well and getting some tough yardage.