The Portis move in hindsight

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

All I'm trying to say is that you can win with Betts as your starting RB.

I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are 2-6 when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are 2-6 when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?

In all fairness the games he's started haven't exactly been when the team was firing on all cylinders. He's starting for a bad team right now.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

In all fairness the games he's started haven't exactly been when the team was firing on all cylinders. He's starting for a bad team right now.

That's all well and good, but how is that any different from someone saying that the Redskins can win with Patrick Ramsey? The numbers say that both of those statements are false.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

That's all well and good, but how is that any different from someone saying that the Redskins can win with Patrick Ramsey? The numbers say that both of those statements are false.

It's tough to make a direct comparison across two positions like that.

You could argue it either way I guess. It's true Ramsey wasn't on very good teams either.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are 2-6 when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?

Sorry but your point is not very good. How are you going to blame Betts when TB tramples our defense?

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Sorry but your point is not very good. How are you going to blame Betts when TB tramples our defense?

My point isn't very good? You said that the Redskins can win with Betts, and yet, history has show that the Redskins lose 75% of the time when Betts starts. How is my point not very good?

And I blame Betts for the Tampa game for the fumble he gave away on a potential scoring drive.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Sorry but your point is not very good. How are you going to blame Betts when TB tramples our defense?

Because Betts fumbled that game away

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Because Betts fumbled that game away

Are you seriously pinning that loss all on Betts?

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Are you seriously pinning that loss all on Betts?

No, but without that fumble they have a much better shot at winning. They were working their way to a drive that could have gotten them right back in it, however, the fumble killed that. The D should've played better, but that hurts...a WHOLE LOT. About as much as when Stephen Davis fumbled against the Boys a few years back...

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Because Betts fumbled that game away

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.........

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

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.........

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.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are 2-6 when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?

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.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by dgack

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.

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.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

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.

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.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by dgack

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.

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.