Interesting tidbit about our running game

SmootSmack · 11-27-2005, 10:16 PM

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal:

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, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal:

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?

SmootSmack · 11-27-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

offiss · 11-28-2005, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 11-28-2005, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

mredskins · 11-29-2005, 12:47 PM

yup

Southpaw · 11-28-2005, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

Beemnseven · 11-28-2005, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southpaw

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

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.

RedskinNation21 · 11-28-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

I really hope you dont think Champ Bailey is worth a damn. Denver got a better deal b/c of tatum bell. Champ isnt even top ten cb in the league. His ints this year was only because the qb threw it right to him.

irish · 11-28-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinNation21

I really hope you dont think Champ Bailey is worth a damn. Denver got a better deal b/c of tatum bell. Champ isnt even top ten cb in the league. His ints this year was only because the qb threw it right to him.

The real killer on this deal is the draft pick. Denver has the skins 1st rounder this year. That would have been nice to have that pick and maybe boost the D line. The skins will never be able to build for the future giving away draft picks like they do.

SkinsLove24/7 · 11-27-2005, 10:54 PM

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

skinsguy · 11-27-2005, 11:29 PM

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 · 11-27-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Beemnseven · 11-28-2005, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 11-28-2005, 01:19 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.

11-27-2005, 10:16 PM	#1
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Interesting tidbit about our running game Saw this in the Wall Street Journal: 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. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

11-29-2005, 12:47 PM	#6
mredskins Gamebreaker Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,955	Re: Interesting tidbit about our running game yup

11-27-2005, 10:54 PM	#11
SkinsLove24/7 Special Teams Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Bowie, MD Age: 38 Posts: 423	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.

11-27-2005, 11:29 PM	#12
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	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. __________________ "Fire Up That Diesel!"

11-28-2005, 01:19 AM	#15
Sheriff Gonna Getcha Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 45 Posts: 8,317	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.

Interesting tidbit about our running game

Locker Room Main Forum